The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (48 page)

He returned in about 629 and it was then that his campaign of revenge began. An elegy to Cadwallon,
Marwnad Cadwallon
, talks of fourteen major battles and sixty musterings. The battle
list is longer than Arthur’s and includes a battle at Caer Digoll in Shropshire, close to the site for Caer Faddon in
The Dream of Rhonabwy.
At what stage Cadwallon and Penda joined
forces is not clear. It may well have been from the start, with the mutual objectives of the extermination of Edwin and the conquest of Northumbria.

The culmination of the campaign happened on 12 October 632 at Hatfield, which is almost certainly Hatfield in Yorkshire, north of Doncaster – possibly the place that Geoffrey cited in his
History
for Ambrosius’s defeat of Hengist. Here Penda and Cadwallon slaughtered the forces of Edwin of Northumbria, including Edwin himself and most of his family. The two did not
leave it there. They went on a rampage through Northumbria, laying waste to the land, for a whole year. However, Cadwallon was caught by surprise at Heavenfield, near Hexham, by Hadrian’s
Wall and was killed by Oswald, son of King Athelfrith who had defeated the British at both Chester and probably Catraeth.

Had Cadwallon survived, the future of the British may have been very different. Cadwallon could have reclaimed much of the North for the British, but with his death the
British resistance crumbled. The year 632/3 was their final triumph.

Perhaps Athrwys of Gwent was involved in it all. We know that Cadwallon had a huge force with him. The campaign could not have been supported by Penda’s men alone. Cadwallon no doubt
mustered British men in the North, but he needed large reserves to sustain his campaign for a whole year so far from Gwynedd. With Tewdrig dead and Meurig king, Athrwys was heir apparent but
doubtless looking for battle experience. If he had helped in the victory at Tintern he now helped in the destruction of a kingdom.

We don’t know if Athrwys was involved, but it would surprise me if he weren’t. Cadwallon could not have achieved this with a force from Gwynedd alone, or even with the men of Powys.
Gwent had already shown its prowess by defeating the Saxons at Tintern, and surely Cadwallon would have wanted some of that prestige for his army.

This is not to say that the legend of Arthur is based on the campaign of Cadwallon. Not at all. But when, in the 770s, Athrwys ap Ffernfael looked back to that Golden Age when the Welsh had
proved they could defeat the English, who’s to say that in pushing the case for the Arthur of legend he did not colour it with memories of Athrwys ap Meurig’s victory at Tintern and the
subsequent campaign that gave Wales glory and freedom?

It is only a proposal, but it would explain why Athrwys ap Meurig, who lived over a hundred years after Badon, and well beyond the traditional Arthurian period, might in any way be regarded as a
candidate for the original Arthur. It explains why Arthur is shown as ruling from Caerwent (or Caerleon, as Geoffrey believed) and from Gelliwig, because that was Arthur of Gwent’s base. It
explains why so many of Arthur’s court in
Culhwch and Olwen
and
The Dream of Rhonabwy
are people of Gwent, such as Bishop Bedwin and Caradog Vreichfras. Doubtless both were
involved in the Battle of Tintern and the subsequent campaign of Cadwallon. It would explain the second half of the pursuit of the Boar Trwyth which takes place through Gwent. The victory at
Tintern is close to the eventual expulsion
of the Boar at the estuary of the Wye. It would also explain how Arthur’s campaigns seem to shift between Wales and the
North.

This does not mean that Geoffrey confused Cadwallon’s campaign with Arthur’s. The memories and histories of these still remained separate, but in Gwent the emphasis was changed so
that Athrwys’s role became more significant, and over a relatively short period of time this change in emphasis became fused with earlier tales of Saxons vanquished by the British. Athrwys,
now treated as the victor at Tintern, also became the victor of Badon by association and the two histories merged.

If this is so, then Athrwys’s victory at Tintern needed to be superimposed in people’s memories over the victory at Badon, and it would help the argument if the victor at Badon was
also called Athrwys or, as is possible, Arthwys of the Pennines. Perhaps the final picture is similar to Geoffrey’s portrayal. Let me suggest the following.

Arthwys of the Pennines was fighting a sustained campaign against the Saxons along the eastern frontier. His forces were stretched to the south which allowed a retaliation by Aelle of the South
Saxons who mounted his own campaign into the heartland of Britain. There could have been battles along the Ridgeway at Liddington or further north towards Lichfield. Aelle’s forces, perhaps
cut off from their retreat, pushed further west and were met by the coalition of kings – Cadell, Riocatus, Aircol, Vortipor, Caradog – along the western frontier, resulting in a siege
at either the Wrekin or the Breidden Hills. Arthwys was able to bring his forces into play and wiped out the Saxon force. Aelle, Bretwalda of the Saxons, was killed, and thereafter the Saxons
lacked a figurehead. The coalition of kings was now able to dictate a boundary which the Saxons could not cross, a boundary which Arthwys may have continued to patrol from his base in central
Britain, which may well have been at Lichfield. Arthwys maintained a peace in Britain until his own death at the hands of the son of Sywno in the 530s. This is likely to have been near the
frontier, perhaps at Camboglanna, which is why it would also be remembered in
Y Gododdin.

Although Arthwys/Arthur was remembered as a great hero in the generations following, after two hundred years the where and the when had become blurred. By the time scribes tried to
record the details in the Welsh Annals the dates had become confused. By now Athrwys ap Ffernfael’s propaganda had done its work. His ancestor had become superimposed over
Arthwys ap Mar and become a national hero. During this period other stories about other Arthurs became sucked into the story along with those of other heroes. By the time
Culhwch and Olwen
and its companion stories took their final form, heroes from throughout the fifth and sixth centuries had become Arthur’s companions.

3. Rebuilding Arthur

The composite Arthur had been created, and continued to grow. It ought to be possible to show how this recomposition took place. I’ve already covered much of this above,
so let’s summarise it here. At this stage I am talking only about the Arthur from the
Mabinogion
and Geoffrey’s
History
, and not the later Arthur of the romances, which is
a whole other story. The suggestions included here are hypothetical but all are based on clear deductions made throughout this book.

SECTION 2

THE LEGEND GROWS

11

ARTHUR’S BONES

The success of Geoffrey’s story about King Arthur is only too evident. Not only was his manuscript issued in thousands of copies – at least 200 survive to this day
– but it created the Arthurian legend. The next chapters explore the many Arthurian tales that appeared between Geoffrey’s
Historia
and the work we most associate with Arthur
today, Malory’s
Mort Darthur.
But first, we should look at one other feature created by Geoffrey’s book that also survives to this day – the tourist industry.

Of the places most closely associated with Arthur in Britain, two stand out – Tintagel and Glastonbury. Ironically, they are the two with the least evidence of an Arthurian connection, and
although Geoffrey placed Arthur’s birth at Tintagel, he made no reference at all to Glastonbury. Arthur was taken to the Isle of Avalon after Camlann, and Geoffrey did not say where that was.
All that changed in 1191, when some monks found the bones of Arthur.

Giraldus Cambrensis, or Gerald of Wales, is our source for this. He was purportedly a witness at the exhumation, although before we reveal his findings we need to consider how the exhumation
came about.

Glastonbury Abbey had suffered greatly in a fire in 1184. During the late Saxon period, especially under the abbacies of Dunstan (942–955) and Athelwold (955–963), it was one of the
great abbeys and schools of England. A monastic settlement had existed here since the late sixth century – Gildas was supposed to have been associated with it. For a period after the Norman
Conquest, the abbey lacked support and fell into disrepair. Much renovation, however, was carried out during the long abbacy of Henri de Blois (1126–1171), the brother
of King Stephen, who was also Bishop of Winchester. Henri was known for his love of luxury, being perhaps the richest man in England, and although much of the building work enhanced the
abbey’s status, it also enhanced his comfort.

Within thirteen years of Henri’s death, however, most of this improvement was lost through the great fire, including the library and its many rare books. Rebuilding work began immediately.
Funds were forthcoming with royal patronage from Henry II.

Both Henry II and his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, were fascinated by the Arthurian legends. Their grandson, the future Duke of Brittany, was named Arthur when he was born on 29 March 1187.
Arthur was next in line to the throne after Richard (who became Richard I in 1189 on Henry’s death), and should rightfully have become king of England when Richard died on 6 April 1199, but
his uncle John saw to it that Arthur would never succeed.